← Back to blog

Inchoate Offences for SQE1

Part of our SQE1 Criminal Law guide → View the full SQE1 Criminal Law guide

21 Apr 2026

Inchoate offences criminalise conduct that falls short of the completed crime. SQE1 tests your ability to identify when the threshold for criminal liability has been crossed.

Inchoate Offences

Criminal Law > Inchoate Offences

What Are Inchoate Offences?

Candidates often lose marks on SQE1 by treating preparatory acts (buying a weapon, conducting surveillance) as evidence of attempt, when the law requires something 'more than merely preparatory' — a distinction examiners test repeatedly across different fact patterns. Inchoate offences are 'incomplete' crimes. They punish defendants for steps taken towards committing an offence, even where the full offence is never completed. The three main inchoate offences are attempt (Criminal Attempts Act 1981), conspiracy (Criminal Law Act 1977), and assisting or encouraging crime (Serious Crime Act 2007, Part 2).

The rationale is deterrence and public protection — the law intervenes before harm occurs, provided the defendant has gone far enough towards criminal conduct.

Inchoate offences are a key component of the Criminal Law syllabus and frequently appear alongside substantive offences in SQE1 scenarios.

Key Principles for SQE1

  • Attempt (Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s.1): A person commits an attempt if, with intent to commit an offence, they do an act which is 'more than merely preparatory' to the commission of the offence. The test is whether the defendant has embarked on the crime proper, not merely prepared for it.

  • Mens rea of attempt: The defendant must intend to commit the full offence. Recklessness is not sufficient for the intent element, even if the substantive offence can be committed recklessly. However, conditional intent ('I will steal if I find something worth taking') can suffice.

  • Impossibility and attempt: Under s.1(2) of the 1981 Act, a person may be convicted of attempt even if the offence is impossible on the facts (e.g., attempting to steal from an empty pocket).

  • Conspiracy (Criminal Law Act 1977, s.1): An agreement between two or more persons to pursue a course of conduct which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of an offence. The actus reus is the agreement itself; the mens rea is intention that the agreement be carried out and that the substantive offence be committed. For more on how conspiracy interacts with primary and secondary liability, see the detailed guide.

  • Conspiracy — spousal and minor exemptions: A person cannot be convicted of conspiracy if the only other party is their spouse/civil partner, or a child under the age of criminal responsibility.

  • Assisting or encouraging crime (Serious Crime Act 2007, ss.44–46): - s.44: intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence - s.45: encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed - s.46: encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed

These replaced the common-law offence of incitement.

  • No requirement that the substantive offence is committed: All three inchoate offences can be charged even if the principal offence never takes place.

Exam tip

When you see a scenario where the defendant has been stopped before the full offence is complete, ask: Has the defendant done something more than merely preparatory? Are they on the job or still in preparation? This is the critical threshold that separates attempt from mere preparation.

How This Appears in SQE1 Questions

SQE1 questions often test the boundary between preparation and attempt — the 'more than merely preparatory' threshold. Examiners test this distinction repeatedly, presenting scenarios where the defendant has taken steps towards the crime but hasn't crossed the threshold. A common trap is treating early preparatory acts (buying equipment, conducting reconnaissance) as sufficient for attempt — they are generally not. Questions also test whether impossibility is a defence (it is not, for attempt) and whether recklessness can found an attempt (it cannot for the intent element).

Common Mistakes Students Make

  • Treating preparatory acts as sufficient for attempt — the defendant must have gone beyond mere preparation and embarked on the crime proper
  • Assuming impossibility is a defence to attempt — it is not under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981
  • Applying recklessness to the intent element of attempt — intention is required for the mens rea of attempt
  • Forgetting that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons — a unilateral belief that there is an agreement is not enough

Quick Summary

  • Attempt requires an act more than merely preparatory with intent.
  • Impossibility is not a defence.
  • Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons.
  • Assisting or encouraging comes in three forms (ss.44-46).
  • The substantive offence need not be completed for any inchoate offence.

Want to test this now? Try a few SQE1-style questions below before moving on.

Test Yourself

Test yourself

Quick check questions based on this article.

Question 1

Scenario

Two business partners agree to submit false invoices to their company's largest client in order to overcharge for services never provided. They plan the scheme over several meetings at their office, detailing which invoices will be fabricated and how the additional revenue will be divided between them. The first partner drafts three false invoices and sends them to the client's accounts department. The client's financial controller identifies discrepancies and alerts the police before any payment is made. Both partners are charged with conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. At trial, the first partner pleads guilty. The second partner argues that she only agreed to the plan because she was under significant financial pressure from personal debts and that she never actually sent any false invoices herself. The second partner is acquitted by the jury. The prosecution had not charged any other person in connection with the scheme. The first partner's legal team now argues that his conviction for conspiracy cannot stand.

Is the first partner's conviction for conspiracy to commit fraud likely to be upheld?

Question 2

Scenario

A drug dealer agrees with a courier to transport a consignment of cocaine from one city to another. The courier agrees with a separate contact to store the cocaine at a rented warehouse on arrival. The drug dealer has never met or communicated with the warehouse contact and is unaware of the storage arrangements. The warehouse contact knows only that he is storing packages for the courier and suspects the packages contain illegal drugs. He has no knowledge of the drug dealer's identity or involvement. The courier collects the cocaine from the drug dealer and delivers it to the warehouse. All three individuals are arrested when police raid the warehouse. The cocaine has an estimated street value of several thousand pounds. The drug dealer and the warehouse contact are both charged with conspiracy to supply Class A controlled drugs. Neither the drug dealer nor the warehouse contact was aware of the other's existence prior to arrest.

Can the drug dealer and the warehouse contact both be convicted of the same conspiracy to supply cocaine?

Question 3

Scenario

A financial adviser and an accountant agree to help a client move money overseas to avoid a tax liability. The financial adviser structures the transactions to conceal the source of the funds. The accountant prepares false documentation to support the transfers. Both know that the purpose is to evade tax. The client is a successful business owner who has been referred to the financial adviser by a solicitor. The solicitor is aware of the client's intention to move money overseas but believes the transactions are for legitimate tax planning purposes. The solicitor receives a referral fee from the financial adviser for introducing the client. The solicitor has not reviewed the transaction documents and has not been involved in structuring the transfers. She has not advised the client on the legality of the proposed arrangements. The solicitor's firm has an anti-money laundering policy that requires all fee earners to report suspicious transactions to the firm's Money Laundering Reporting Officer. All three professionals are charged with conspiracy to cheat the public revenue.

Is the solicitor likely to be convicted of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue?

Practice with full exam-style questions

Try DemoView Pricing

Related Topics

Practise Inchoate Offences Questions for SQE1

Want to solidify your knowledge? ActusPrep provides realistic SQE1 questions tailored to this topic.

👉 Try our free demo: https://actusprep.com/demo 👉 View plans and pricing: https://actusprep.com/pricing